This week we look at the decision in Webb v. City of Carmel and look to use of Trial Rule 15(C) for adding a new party after the statute of limitations has expired. We also discuss whether the court of appeals misapplied Indiana’s summary judgment standard in this case, wherein there is no mention whatsoever of the movants’ evidence, only a determination that the non-movant’s evidence was insufficient.

This discussion looks to the Seventh Circuit's decision in Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., which rejected a defendant's attempt to use Rule 67 to deposit funds with the court's registry as a way to force a putative class representative to involuntarily settle its claim. Fulton Dental builds on the Supreme Court's decision, last year, in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, which held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment could not moot a plaintiff's claims.

In this second post for the day, we examine the perils for defense attorneys in allowing an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 to be ambiguous. Through the case Sanchez v. Prudential Pizza, we examine how the ambiguity allowed plaintiff to recover her attorney's fees and costs.